DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 66TH SUPPORT GROUP HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS and LOCAL R1-8, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SEIU, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES
PANEL

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 66TH SUPPORT GROUP

HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE,

MASSACHUSETTS

and

LOCAL R1-8, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SEIU,
AFL-CIO

Case Nos. 96 FSIP 6

96 FSIP 7

DECISION AND ORDER

Local R1-8,
National Association of Government Employees, SEIU, AFL-CIO (Union) filed two
separate requests for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel)
to consider a negotiation impasse under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the
Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 66th Support Group, Hanscom Air Force
Base, Massachusetts (Employer).

After
investigation of the requests for assistance, the Panel consolidated the cases
and determined that the dispute, which concerns a successor agreement, should be
resolved on the basis of written submissions and rebuttals from the parties.
Submissions were made in accordance with the Panel’s procedural directive, and
it has now considered the entire record.

BACKGROUND

The Employer’s
mission is to manage the development and acquisition of electronic systems for
the Air Force. The bargaining unit consists of approximately 1,100 employees who
work in a variety of technical and administrative occupations. The vast majority
of unit employees work at Hanscom Air Force Base, with approximately 40 Wage
Grade employees stationed at New Boston Air Station in Amherst, New Hampshire.
The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement expired in August 1992, but
remains in effect until a successor is implemented.

ISSUES

There are two issues in dispute: (1) the scope of
the alternative work schedules (AWS) program; and (2) whether unit employees
should receive priority consideration for unit vacancies.

1. Alternative
Work Schedules

a. The Employer’s
Position

The Employer proposes that the current flexitour
program, as described in Electronic Systems Center Instruction 36-801 (December
9, 1994), be continued. This program allows employees some flexibility in
starting and quitting times, while preserving a high level of customer service.
The approach provides a practical arrangement given that some positions at the
installation are one-deep and that unit employees "work as an integrated
team along with military members in all areas of the base."

The Union’s proposal would have a negative impact
on customer service, particularly in view of the fact that by October 1996, the
installation is "slated to lose approximately 40 percent of its acquisition
workforce." Moreover, it is simply too broad in scope and would create an
extreme administrative burden for the Employer. Overall, the Union’s approach
is unrealistic, and its adoption would have an adverse impact on the
installation’s mission.

b. The Union’s
Position

In essence, the Union proposes an expansion of the
AWS program to include flexitour, gliding, variable day, variable week, maxiflex,
4-10, and 5-4/9 schedules, thereby maximizing the options available to all
employees. This proposal is consistent with President Clinton’s directive,
"Expanding Family-Friendly Work Arrangements in the Executive Branch"
(July 11, 1994), which requires agencies to establish programs to encourage and
support flexible work arrangements. The plan is workable and not overly
burdensome, as evidenced by the fact that "the Employer has been testing"
a 5-4/9 schedule "for full-time employees of selected
organizations since 5 April 1992." In addition, a similar AWS program has
been implemented at the Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region,
which is one of the installation’s customers.

The Employer’s proposal, on the other hand, would
restrict, rather than expand, flexible work arrangements. In this regard, the
Employer’s proposal would eliminate the 5-4/9 option for those employees who,
through practice, are already working that schedule. Moreover, the Employer has
provided no evidence that an expansion of work schedule options would have a
negative impact on the agency’s ability to perform its mission. Overall,
management’s proposal is inconsistent with the President’s directive and
fails to recognize the value of flexible work arrangements.

CONCLUSIONS

Having carefully reviewed the record on this issue,
we conclude that neither party’s proposal provides an adequate basis for
resolving the dispute. On the one hand, the Union’s proposal is overly broad
and would create an undue administrative burden for the Employer. The Employer’s
approach, on the other hand, is too restrictive, especially since some employees
are already working a 5-4/9 schedule. Because of these drawbacks, we shall craft
a compromise provision which we believe should provide a more balanced solution.
Under this scheme, the parties shall continue the present flexitour option and
shall also establish a 1-year 5-4/9 pilot, based on section 23.05 D. of the
Union’s proposal; this will allow all unit employees the option of working a
5-4/9 compressed work schedule. At the conclusion of the 1-year pilot, the 5-4/9
option shall be jointly reviewed. If the parties are unable to agree (with the
assistance of a mediator, if necessary) on whether it should be continued, the
matter may be submitted to the Panel for resolution, with the 5-4/9 option
remaining in effect during the evaluation period and any subsequent impasse
proceedings.

In our opinion, this approach is consistent with the
parties’ previous experiment with expanded work schedule options. In this
regard, the parties implemented a 5-4/9 pilot in 1992 but neither concluded the
test nor conducted an evaluation to determine its level of success. The
establishment of this new pilot should allow them to undertake a serious
evaluation of the 5-4/9 option, with the Presidential directive serving as a
backdrop. In addition, maintaining the flexitour option will continue to provide
a benefit to those workers who wish to work this type of schedule. Overall, we
believe that this plan is fair to both sides and, therefore, shall order its
adoption.

2. Priority
Consideration

a. The Employer’s
Position

Preliminarily, the Employer maintains that the
Union’s proposal is nonnegotiable, as it interferes with management’s right,
under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the Statute, to make selections for appointments
from any appropriate source.(1) On the merits, it proposes the following:

Managers with bargaining-unit vacancies not
subject to a Department of Defense, Air Force, or Air Force Materiel Command
covered program, will be given internal referrals for consideration, if
there are qualified, available employees, prior to the referral of external
candidates. External candidates can be referrals from program[s] such as,
Applicant Supply File, OPM, VRA, Outstanding Scholar, Handicap, etc.

This proposal would require managers to consider
unit employees for vacancies only if the opening is not subject to certain
"covered" programs such as the DOD Priority Placement Program and the
Air Force Career Program. Under this plan, unit employees would be given
consideration for some vacancies prior to the referral of external candidates.
Unlike the Union’s proposal, this approach would preserve the integrity of
department-wide programs for displaced workers while providing some benefit to
unit employees.

b. The Union’s
Position

In response to the Employer’s allegation of
nonnegotiability, the Union contends that its proposal is within the duty to
bargain. On the merits, it proposes the following:

Managers with vacancies, within the bargaining
unit, will consult with the staffing office to assure that consideration for
vacant positions is given to bargaining unit employees ahead of nonunit
employees and outsiders. This consultation with the staffing office will be
noted in the record of the action by the personal representative. Where
profiles are available, the profiles will be referred to the appropriate
official for review.

This proposal would enhance opportunities for unit
employees by providing them with priority consideration for unit vacancies. Its
adoption would likely have a positive impact on morale, but would not
"restrict the Employer from seeking applicants from all available
sources." Moreover, there is nothing in its proposal "that runs
counter to, or would significantly interfere" with department-wide programs
for displaced workers. Finally, the proposal is similar to one ordered by the
Panel in a previous case.(2)

CONCLUSIONS

Turning first to the duty-to-bargain question, the
Panel is guided by the FLRA’s decision in Commander, Carswell Air Force
Base, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1364, 31
FLRA 620 (1988). In that case, the FLRA concluded that the Panel may apply
Authority precedent to resolve duty-to-bargain questions which arise during
impasse proceedings. As relevant here, the FLRA has consistently held that a
proposal that requires an agency to give priority consideration to employees
within a bargaining unit when filling vacancies, but does not prevent management
from timely considering other applicants or expanding the area of consideration
once bargaining-unit employees have been considered, does not directly interfere
with management’s right to select under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the Statute.(3)
Because the Union’s proposal in the instant case appears to be substantively
identical to proposals found to be negotiable, we conclude that the matter is
properly before us for resolution on the merits.

Upon review of the evidence and arguments presented
by the parties, we conclude that the Union’s proposal should serve as the
basis for resolving the impasse. We believe that the modest benefit of first
consideration for vacant bargaining-unit positions should be given to
bargaining-unit applicants. The Union’s proposal would apply only after the
Employer determines to fill a position, and would not affect management’s
right to select from any appropriate source should the initial area of
consideration fail to produce a sufficient number of highly qualified
candidates. Since the proposal merely establishes the order in which candidates
are referred to the selecting official, this requirement would do little to
delay the ultimate decision to select. While we are mindful of the competing
interest of displaced employees from other locales, on balance, we are persuaded
that the positive impact on the morale of unit employees outweighs the benefit
to these potential beneficiaries. For these reasons, we shall order adoption of
the Union’s proposal.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it by section
7119 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C.
§ 7119, and because of the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute
during the course of proceedings instituted under the Panel's regulations, 5
C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel under § 2471.11(a)
of its regulations hereby orders the following:

1. Alternative
Work Schedules

The parties shall adopt the following wording:

The current flexitour program, as described in
Electronic Systems Center Instruction 36-801 (December 9, 1994), shall
remain in effect. In addition, the parties shall establish a 1-year pilot,
based on section 23.05 D. of the Union’s proposal, which will allow all
unit employees the option of working a 5-4/9 compressed work schedule. At
the conclusion of the 1-year pilot, the 5-4/9 option shall be jointly
reviewed, and if the parties are unable to agree on whether it should be
continued, the matter may be submitted to the Panel for resolution, with the
pilot remaining in effect during the evaluation period and any subsequent
impasse proceedings.

2. Priority
Consideration

The parties shall adopt the Union’s proposal.

By direction of the Panel.

Linda A. Lafferty

Executive Director

March 14, 1996

Washington, D.C.

1.In support of this position, the Employer cites
Laurel Bay Teachers Association, OEA/NEA and U.S. Department of Defense, Stateside Dependents Schools, Laurel Bay Schools, Laurel Bay, South
Carolina, 49 FLRA 679 (1994) and American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Prison Locals, Local 3974 and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, McKean,
Pennsylvania, 48 FLRA 225 (1993).

2.See Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, New York Army and Air National Guard, Latham, New York and New York State Council, Association of Civilian
Technicians, Case No. 94 FSIP 27 (April 20, 1994), Panel Release No. 358.